On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:27:26 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
Ben Holmes said...
"Chuckles claimed that the question of why James Chaney was never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released is a question that has already been answered."
This cite that proves what Ben claimed was not true, and that Chaney was
interviewed by the FBI before the WCR was released...
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10405#relPageId=696&tab=page
Now would be an excellent time for Ben to simply admit he was wrong and
use this as a learning moment. We'll see if he's ready to 'fess up to an >error.
Ben? We know you read everything over here. The ball is in your court.
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:27:26 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
Ben Holmes said...
"Chuckles claimed that the question of why James Chaney was never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released is a question that has already been answered."
This cite that proves what Ben claimed was not true, and that Chaney was >> interviewed by the FBI before the WCR was released...
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10405#relPageId=696&tab=page
Now would be an excellent time for Ben to simply admit he was wrong and >use this as a learning moment. We'll see if he's ready to 'fess up to an >error.
Ben? We know you read everything over here. The ball is in your court.
Even a moron would be embarrassed at this proof that Chickenshit can't reason or think correctly.
Amusingly, it's *STILL* a fact that no-one questioned James Chaney in
an official capacity before the WCR was released.
These morons think that an FBI questioning about an event THE DAY
AFTER, and having nothing to do with his official duties on 11/22 contradicts my statement.
Now would be an excellent time for an honest believer to step up to
the plate, and answer the question: Why was James Chaney never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released?
And yes, context matters.
It's a question that has **NEVER** been answered, no matter what
Chuckles wants to claim... and it's a question that is perfectly true,
no matter what Chickenshit wants to claim.
Watch folks, as Chuckleshit runs away again...
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:16:38?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:27:26 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
Ben Holmes said...
"Chuckles claimed that the question of why James Chaney was never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released is a question that has already been answered."
This cite that proves what Ben claimed was not true, and that Chaney was >>>> interviewed by the FBI before the WCR was released...
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10405#relPageId=696&tab=page >>>
Now would be an excellent time for Ben to simply admit he was wrong and >>>use this as a learning moment. We'll see if he's ready to 'fess up to an >>>error.
Ben? We know you read everything over here. The ball is in your court.
Even a moron would be embarrassed at this proof that Chickenshit can't
reason or think correctly.
Amusingly, it's *STILL* a fact that no-one questioned James Chaney in
an official capacity before the WCR was released.
These morons think that an FBI questioning about an event THE DAY
AFTER, and having nothing to do with his official duties on 11/22
contradicts my statement.
The report is from 11/28/63, the day before the WC was formed, not the day after the WCR was released.
Now would be an excellent time for an honest believer to step up to
the plate, and answer the question: Why was James Chaney never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released?
And yes, context matters.
It's a question that has **NEVER** been answered, no matter what
Chuckles wants to claim... and it's a question that is perfectly true,
no matter what Chickenshit wants to claim.
Watch folks, as Chuckleshit runs away again...
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 09:50:24 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Friday, August 18, 2023 at 11:16:38?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:27:26 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
Ben Holmes said...
"Chuckles claimed that the question of why James Chaney was never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released is a question that has already been answered."
This cite that proves what Ben claimed was not true, and that Chaney was
interviewed by the FBI before the WCR was released...
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10405#relPageId=696&tab=page >>>
Now would be an excellent time for Ben to simply admit he was wrong and >>>use this as a learning moment. We'll see if he's ready to 'fess up to an >>>error.
Ben? We know you read everything over here. The ball is in your court.
Even a moron would be embarrassed at this proof that Chickenshit can't
reason or think correctly.
Amusingly, it's *STILL* a fact that no-one questioned James Chaney in
an official capacity before the WCR was released.
These morons think that an FBI questioning about an event THE DAY
AFTER, and having nothing to do with his official duties on 11/22
contradicts my statement.
The report is from 11/28/63, the day before the WC was formed, not the day after the WCR was released.A perfect example of your inability to reason. Moron that you are,
you believe that the questioning, CONCERNING AN EVENT THAT HAPPENED
THE DAY AFTER THE ASSASSINATION, is relevant to the assassination.
You clearly don't read for comprehension...
Or you're just too stupid to figure it out.
Particularly this question:
So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
And indeed he did. He quite stupidly thought that the issue was the particular *DAY* Chaney was questioned, even though there are quite aNow would be an excellent time for an honest believer to step up to
the plate, and answer the question: Why was James Chaney never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released?
And yes, context matters.
It's a question that has **NEVER** been answered, no matter what
Chuckles wants to claim... and it's a question that is perfectly true,
no matter what Chickenshit wants to claim.
Watch folks, as Chuckleshit runs away again...
few days - 297... between the day of the assassination and the
publishing of the WCR.
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:27:26 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
Ben Holmes said...
"Chuckles claimed that the question of why James Chaney was never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released is a question that has already been answered."
This cite that proves what Ben claimed was not true, and that Chaney was >>> interviewed by the FBI before the WCR was released...
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10405#relPageId=696&tab=page
Now would be an excellent time for Ben to simply admit he was wrong and
use this as a learning moment. We'll see if he's ready to 'fess up to an >>error.
Ben? We know you read everything over here. The ball is in your court.
Even a moron would be embarrassed at this proof that Chickenshit can't
reason or think correctly.
Amusingly, it's *STILL* a fact that no-one questioned James Chaney in
an official capacity before the WCR was released.
These morons think that an FBI questioning about an event THE DAY
AFTER, and having nothing to do with his official duties on 11/22
contradicts my statement.
Now would be an excellent time for an honest believer to step up to
the plate, and answer the question: Why was James Chaney never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released?
And yes, context matters.
It's a question that has **NEVER** been answered, no matter what
Chuckles wants to claim... and it's a question that is perfectly true,
no matter what Chickenshit wants to claim.
Watch folks, as Chuckleshit runs away again...
Your tactic is to run from every idea I express.
On Fri, 18 Aug 2023 08:16:34 -0700, Ben Holmes <Ad...@ConspiracyJFKForum.com> wrote:
On Friday, October 2, 2020 at 8:27:26 PM UTC-5, Bud wrote:
Ben Holmes said...
"Chuckles claimed that the question of why James Chaney was never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was
released is a question that has already been answered."
This cite that proves what Ben claimed was not true, and that Chaney was >>> interviewed by the FBI before the WCR was released...
https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10405#relPageId=696&tab=page >>
Now would be an excellent time for Ben to simply admit he was wrong and >>use this as a learning moment. We'll see if he's ready to 'fess up to an >>error.
Ben? We know you read everything over here. The ball is in your court.
Even a moron would be embarrassed at this proof that Chickenshit can't >reason or think correctly.
Amusingly, it's *STILL* a fact that no-one questioned James Chaney in
an official capacity before the WCR was released.
These morons think that an FBI questioning about an event THE DAY
AFTER, and having nothing to do with his official duties on 11/22 >contradicts my statement.
Now would be an excellent time for an honest believer to step up to
the plate, and answer the question: Why was James Chaney never
questioned by *ANYONE* in an official capacity before the WCR was >released?
And yes, context matters.
It's a question that has **NEVER** been answered, no matter what
Chuckles wants to claim... and it's a question that is perfectly true,
no matter what Chickenshit wants to claim.
Watch folks, as Chuckleshit runs away again...Anyone who followed this thread now knows the secret to shutting
Chickenshit up.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Your tactic is to run from every idea I express.So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it.
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 09:02:55 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:54:03?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Your tactic is to run from every idea I express.So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Yes, exactly like that.
Reponses now in new thread: https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/cJVtcR4dQoAChickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it.
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
On Monday, August 21, 2023 at 11:54:03?AM UTC-4, Ben Holmes wrote:
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 08:52:39 -0700 (PDT), Bud <sirs...@fast.net>
wrote:
Your tactic is to run from every idea I express.So, according to Bugliosi, it was this "oval" shape that was
"virtually conclusive evidence" of an SBT?
Yes, exactly like that.
Chickenshit is TERRIFIED of this simple honest question. He knows
that Bugliosi was a moron if he truly thought this... yet you can't
get Chickenshit to publicly acknowledge that Bugliosi said this.
It's a simple "Yes" or "No" question, and Chickenshit cannot cite
where he has EVER answered it.
So it's going to keep getting asked until Chickenshit answers it.
Get to work removing my responses in the new thread.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 100:34:26 |
| Calls: | 6,659 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,208 |
| Messages: | 5,334,754 |